Another Caveat Emptor Thread - with a slight twist
Discussion
arfursleep said:
It is when it decides to do that when
- you're overtaking on a busy road in rush hour and suddenly you have no power and have to take evasive action to get back into the flow of traffic you've just left before the lorry coming the other way hits you!
- mid-corner when it provokes some lift-off oversteer on a front wheel drive car!
Please tell me that was two separate incidents. Although, to be frank, given the sound of that overtake, it wouldn't surprise me...- you're overtaking on a busy road in rush hour and suddenly you have no power and have to take evasive action to get back into the flow of traffic you've just left before the lorry coming the other way hits you!
- mid-corner when it provokes some lift-off oversteer on a front wheel drive car!
arfursleep said:
Saab 9-3 circa 2005-6 with a defectively design DPF filter system that would put the car into limp mode if the sensor was "blocked"
Luckily it was a demo so went back ASAP.
I had one of those. Their solution was to clean it on each failure and it took about 14 months for a rectification.Luckily it was a demo so went back ASAP.
arfursleep said:
walm said:
A car that limits power and goes into limp-home mode isn't really dangerous to anyone is it?
It is when it decides to do that when - you're overtaking on a busy road in rush hour and suddenly you have no power and have to take evasive action to get back into the flow of traffic you've just left before the lorry coming the other way hits you!
- mid-corner when it provokes some lift-off oversteer on a front wheel drive car!
And outside of trackdays or carlimits days I don't take corners at the kind of speed that makes lift-off oversteer a worry, but perhaps I am just driving too slowly.
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
The difference here is the fault was known about. The computer showed it had happened several times prior to sale, and was an expensive fix so the seller was hiding the issue. PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
Ordinarily private sales are 'as sold', but the whole point of this thread is that the seller deliberately misrepresented the car (based on the evidence presented). PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
V6Pushfit said:
The difference here is the fault was known about. The computer showed it had happened several times prior to sale, and was an expensive fix so the seller was hiding the issue.
As funkyrobot says though, what if the seller had taken the car to a dealer (or indy) who had said "nah, they all do that when they get to this age, it's not a problem, it'll clear itself you just see". Or even, the indy changed the fluid (or other snake oil) and said "yep, that'll be fine now". We can't know, sitting here, what happened leading up to the sale. But it's not at all unusual for people to move a car on immediately after it throws a big bill.
V6Pushfit said:
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
The difference here is the fault was known about. The computer showed it had happened several times prior to sale, and was an expensive fix so the seller was hiding the issue. PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
I know of people who know nothing about cars. They have been to garages multiple times for the same issue. Each time a fault is cleared, but then crops up again a bit later.
Also, how do you know that a process of changing things one at a time to find the fault hasn't been used? So, car plays up, car taken to garage, garage try something, fault clears, owner sent on their way. Fault pops up again, garage try something else, fault cleared, owner sent on their way etc. Each time garage say 'should be fine now'.
I know that this is very annoying for the OP and it looks like the seller could have known about the fault. However, wouldn't a court take into account the fact that someone may have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever and was just going on the advice of someone they got to fix the fault?
Edited by funkyrobot on Thursday 29th September 10:32
StuTheGrouch said:
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
Ordinarily private sales are 'as sold', but the whole point of this thread is that the seller deliberately misrepresented the car (based on the evidence presented). PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
I think the difference here is the first sentence should read "PH'er sells car privately knowing it has a massive gearbox fault but misrepresents the car as being mechanically sound.. Seller comes back with faults."PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
Your scenario above about a recurring gearbox fault error proves the seller knew about it, which proves he misrepresented it. Or otherwise he has a stack of receipts from a garage, either way, he knew.
_dobbo_ said:
I think the difference here is the first sentence should read "PH'er sells car privately knowing it has a massive gearbox fault but misrepresents the car as being mechanically sound.. Seller comes back with faults."
In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
Of course, this could be the case.In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
funkyrobot said:
Of course, this could be the case.
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
Yeah OP - it's your fault for buying the car in the first place...But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
funkyrobot said:
_dobbo_ said:
I think the difference here is the first sentence should read "PH'er sells car privately knowing it has a massive gearbox fault but misrepresents the car as being mechanically sound.. Seller comes back with faults."
In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
Of course, this could be the case.In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
funkyrobot said:
How do you know the seller knew about it? As mentioned above, he could have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever. Car played up, took it to a garage, garage cleared fault, seller sent on his way.
I know of people who know nothing about cars. They have been to garages multiple times for the same issue. Each time a fault is cleared, but then crops up again a bit later.
Also, how do you know that a process of changing things one at a time to find the fault hasn't been used? So, car plays up, car taken to garage, garage try something, fault clears, owner sent on their way. Fault pops up again, garage try something else, fault cleared, owner sent on their way etc. Each time garage say 'should be fine now'.
I know that this is very annoying for the OP and it looks like the seller could have known about the fault. However, wouldn't a court take into account the fact that someone may have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever and was just going on the advice of someone they got to fix the fault?
The ad said 'Excellent condition throughout. APR software modified for over 1 year, runs beautifully. MUST DRIVE!' and no faults declared. Yet the ECU showed a fault that occurred on 18th August well before he bought the car. Its likely it had occurred well before that too but had previous codes cleared.I know of people who know nothing about cars. They have been to garages multiple times for the same issue. Each time a fault is cleared, but then crops up again a bit later.
Also, how do you know that a process of changing things one at a time to find the fault hasn't been used? So, car plays up, car taken to garage, garage try something, fault clears, owner sent on their way. Fault pops up again, garage try something else, fault cleared, owner sent on their way etc. Each time garage say 'should be fine now'.
I know that this is very annoying for the OP and it looks like the seller could have known about the fault. However, wouldn't a court take into account the fact that someone may have no mechanical knowledge whatsoever and was just going on the advice of someone they got to fix the fault?
This seems all in favour of OP. The seller has just offloaded his problem and been caught out...
funkyrobot said:
So, PH'er sells car privately.. Seller comes back with faults. PH crowed tell seller to tell buyer to jog on.
PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
Try reading the thread before making comments that occur on pages 1-2.PH'er buys car privately. Car has faults. Pitchforks come out and PH crowd say take to court etc.
OP bought privately knowing full well that a private sale can mean no return or warranty. Yes, a private seller can be taken to court if he/she knew there were certain faults, and it could be proven they have hidden them. However, isn't this much more difficult if the sale was indeed private? The seller could simply say he had warning messages or issues, took the vehicle to a garage, they cleared messages/did something on the vehicle, and said everything was ok.
Also, OP states that the car is dangerous. Yet he is still driving around in it with his kids on board?
funkyrobot said:
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Yes. The faults are shown in the cars computer as the OP explained in the OP.And if he goes with your "garage told me it was fine" defence - multiple times (remember it had the gearbox fault 10 times with the previous owner!!), I suspect that would count as misrepresentation of a "running beautifully" car.
JustinP1 said:
funkyrobot said:
Of course, this could be the case.
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
Yeah OP - it's your fault for buying the car in the first place...But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
Ok, fair enough, I guess my limits on what I would spend privately differ from the OP's.
Burwood said:
funkyrobot said:
_dobbo_ said:
I think the difference here is the first sentence should read "PH'er sells car privately knowing it has a massive gearbox fault but misrepresents the car as being mechanically sound.. Seller comes back with faults."
In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
Of course, this could be the case.In that scenario the PH crowd response would likely not be telling anyone to jog on.
Balance of probability having seen the video is that the seller must have known there was a fault. You can't really miss the frenzied beeping and the dash display. Even if the seller claims those faults must have appeared when someone else was driving, you have to believe that other person wouldn't say anything about them in order to believe the seller didn't know.
So the seller probably knew, but you have to be able to prove he did.
But can anyone 'prove' the seller knew?
Also, why did the OP buy such a complex and expensive car privately? If these vehicles are known to have certain issues, why not go down the dealer/warrantied route?
I think the OP bought based on price and is now suffering some pain because of this.
KevinCamaroSS said:
Try reading the thread before making comments that occur on pages 1-2.
Oooooh, I'm ever so sorry.Maybe I'm making them again because this thread is still going in full swing.
Oh well, looks like there is a 95% chance the OP will only be £800 or so down. Not bad for a £17k used, private purchase.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff